Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have never heard the word 'diplomacy' in my life - and I have had a long working life - as often as in recent weeks. Ursula von der Leyen herself said – I quote – that we must do everything possible to de-escalate and stop the conflict: But what is the proposal? How to do this de-escalation? How do you get it? We haven't been told. Let us also go back to diplomacy when we talk about war, of which President von der Leyen herself speaks very softly – she refers to this conflict as a conflict with unintended consequences. So, perhaps the U.S. war was not waged in violation of international law? We have no answer to that either. Yesterday was the hardest day since the beginning of the conflict: Iran unleashed its missiles all over the region and, at the same time, Israel crossed the traditional space dedicated to Hezbollah, southern Lebanon, and began, for the first time in my memory, to attack the center. And Europe has also been under attack all the time – starting with Cyprus but also Turkey, etc. Yet we have no reports on this: We don't know anything. The truth is that the time for diplomacy, if ever there was, is largely over.

Madam President, I'll try to be shorter than two minutes. I just noticed one thing: a long time ago, when we started this debate and things looked a little better, there was a very divisive mood in this plenary. Tonight, despite everything, Commissioner, I think we are getting there, to discuss the technicalities, the means, the money and the organisation. Thank you very much for being here, and thanks to our colleague, we have been working very hard on this report. Still, before I leave – I am not part of any military experience. I am a politician, and a proud politician, because I think we are people who are intermediaries with the consensus of the people. So one thing is missing in all our discussion, which also has developed very well in this period. We still don't talk about how to get a popular consensus on this operation. There are two things that the Ukraine war has taught us. One, the modernisation of war, and second, the fact that Ukraine has a more resilient people, that is why it continues to resist. And the real weakness of Putin is the fact that he has no people, because it's him, the head of Russia. So I think as a politician, Commissioner, I would like to say, besides thank you, I think that we should address the issue of how we have to make the population talk about these things because we need the consensus. After all, popular resilience is the most important weapon.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, months ago, when we began to talk about Europe's strategic autonomy, it seemed to many an exaggeration or even a sign of abandoning the diplomatic option. Today, several months after the discussion began, we find ourselves facing a new conflict in the Middle East, after the one in Ukraine, living proof that Europe is exposed to risk of attacks that now are taking new forms for which we are not yet prepared. War has changed, in fact, its tools. Conflict today presents an entirely new face and entirely new threats. These new wars are increasingly technologically driven and increasingly unmanned. New technologies are transforming strategies, leading toward the miniaturisation and decentralisation of systems. As drones, AI-enabled weapons, smart mines, portable missiles and missile systems are proving, even the role of human power is changing. The future is moving toward weapons that require minimal direct human involvement. How can we defend our citizens, our sovereignty, and our democratic system, and in a security environment that is changing so rapidly? This is the question we have tried to answer in this report by interviewing many experts, NATO officials, military personnel, think tanks, national representatives. To begin with, we are convinced that defence must be brought back to its true meaning, which is not a metaphor for rearmament. The right to safety and protection is a constitutional right of all European citizens, and one of the pillars of state sovereignty. Our task, therefore, is not simply to increase military spending, but to ensure that Europe can genuinely protect its citizens through a collective effort and a shared strategy. Many have assumed for a long time that a European army would simply be the sum of the total national armed forces, but states remain sovereign, as it should be, in the management of their army. So we have worked precisely on this challenge: identifying the key capability gaps and exploring how Europe can address them collectively. In our view, the most effective path is to develop the technological dimension, altogether. It is the most feasible step. Technologies are already there, yet no single state has a decisive advantage, and no single state can invest sufficiently on its own. What Europe can do, rapidly and shared by all Member States, is to strengthen the development of technologies in order to create a common architecture, an integrated system of command, control, communication intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, capable of enabling Europe's forces to act together, efficiently and coherently, creating joint operation among all states and with NATO. Finally, we have included two key recommendations in this report. First, we believe that the principle of 'buy European' should play a central role in future procurement strategies. Second, the European Parliament, we think, must play an essential role in this development. We cannot risk leaving the issue of defence outside effective oversight and democratic control.

Mr President, good evening, Commissioner. Good evening, fellow MEPs. I'm here just to say a few words to present the resolution that we will vote on tomorrow dedicated to the violation of human rights in Iran. This new resolution follows the important and comprehensive text on the brutal repression in Iran adopted by the European Parliament on 22 January. So, we have worked mainly to integrate the two texts, both in language and in concept. This resolution demands, once again, that the Iranian authorities unconditionally release all persons imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression, and drop all charges against them. A particular place in the text is reserved to Narges Mohammadi, because she is at this point, besides having been also awarded the Sakharov award, she is the very symbol of the repression of the regime and the resilience of the people of Iran. The protest and the struggle of the Iranian people must not be forgotten.

Madam President, dear colleagues, today in Hong Kong, a long‑time publisher and pro-democracy activist, Jimmy Lai, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison, at the age of 70. For an old man, this amounts to a death sentence. May I remind you that just last month, on 22 January, this plenary adopted a resolution on this important case. I believe it is essential to reiterate that the sentence constitutes a clear violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which remain in force in Hong Kong. At a crucial moment when we are considering reopening relations with China after seven years, I think this case must not be considered closed. Our own dignity is also at stake here.

Mr President, dear colleagues, in recent months we have very often heard in this room many accusations about how slow and incapable of being strong and reactive the EU has been. Maybe we have been like this, but I think things are changing. On Iran, it seems to me that we have reacted swiftly. So this is the right moment for making our points: first, strong restrictive sanctions to isolate the regime; second, show solidarity on the part of the EU with the brave people of Iran by creating an international mechanism that investigates and makes accountable the human rights violations. At the end, we need to be very clear on the issue of regime change. I must tell you that I am a strong believer in the fact that the future of Iran lies exclusively in the hands of the Iranian people. I think that we just came from negotiating a resolution on those issues. Most of the people that participated in the group you have already heard and they are still in this room. All the points in this resolution have also been reached with fairness, with discussion, but with determination to immediately react.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the dossier we are discussing now highlights some key elements, I think. For the first time Europe is speaking, but is speaking not of rearmament but is starting from defence. Defence, I want to remember here, is a constitutional citizen right through almost all the countries in Europe. It is a genuine step forward, and we hope it will help pave the way for a more unified debate on these issues. Second, the dossier affirms that a truly common defence would be effective only if starts from the creation of a European technological unit and the development of a European defence, technological and industrial base. Third, the report criticises the excessive use of Article 122, which for us as parliamentarians is a key battle. If we do not assert in fact this principle Parliament risks staying excluded from the proceeding of this development. Parliament must always maintain, in my opinion, its role of oversight and transparency of all the difficult choices we are going to be called to make.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, EDIP was voted on in the relevant committees and widely discussed. I'm only here because I want to emphasize one thing for you: Parliament’s role in the process of building European defence. We must not hide the fact that the urgency procedure and the use of Article 122 by the Commission have profoundly limited the role of this Parliament in the governance of processes; In fact, it is clear to everyone that in every file or defence project that is presented there is never, in the end, the role of Parliament, which should automatically end after the approval of all these many rules. As EDIP - and I thank Mr Glucksmann here, who was the group leader, let's say of a beautiful, perhaps even the first, working group - we have barely managed to include an obligation on the part of the Commission to inform about the annual developments of the processes and to participate as an observer in the process. board It coordinates Member States on projects. This is not enough. I believe that right and left in this Parliament have an interest...

Madam President, in 2025, Iran's inflation is up to 45 %. Youth unemployment is up to 20 %, while 30 % of the population is below the poverty threshold. Economic crisis due to the sanctions have reduced the regime consensus, and the defeat of Hezbollah by Israel has ruined Iran's major project of expansion towards the West. Iran is weaker than ever, and yet can still count on a solid alliance with Russia, and particularly also with China, which are the main buyers of Iran's oil. The West at this point has two options: taking advantage of this crisis, but risking a major escalation, or making Iran part of a larger, what we once called a 'comprehensive peace process', a process that could involve and stabilise all the major players of the region, Israel, Arab nations and Iran and global players as US, Europe and China. It is the type of process that I like to feel that a little bit catch Ms Kallas in her recent statement.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is not at war at the moment, but the fact that there are European countries under threat and tensions requires a debate that can no longer be avoided. The war has changed and drones are the symbol of this change: the transition from the age of steel to that of the web, which poses new dangers with respect to which Europe is completely unprepared. We need to take note. We need a Europe capable of defending itself externally, but not with a generalized rearmament. A new defense is possible and it is up to us to define it: integrated and coordinated defence that is not an instrument of offence against the freedom of peoples. I end here by recalling perhaps the most important article of the Italian Constitution, Article 11, which rejects war, but which at the same time also considers part of the inalienable Constitution the defense of the country and its citizens.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the meantime, I will talk about why we need to defend the Palestinians at this time. The first reason is that they are a people harassed since 1948 and their suffering continues to reproduce tragedies. The second reason is that the war is not proving to be a solution for Israel either: After two years of applying all its military power in a small territory, the Israeli government continues to claim that it failed to neutralize Hamas. This is a defeat. Peace, even for Israel, must take another path, which is what the relatives of the reservist hostages and the thousands of citizens who, in recent years and still today, parade against Netanyahu indicate and suggest to us. Finally, peace is made clear, even among us: The point that divides us in here, that has made it impossible to do anything or do even a few things, is that of genocide. But even if we did not use this word, they would not change the facts, as many have said before me: the manner, place and timing of the killing of tens of thousands of people. As a S&D group we have decided to say this word, and if we want to get out of the impasse in which we have to divide ourselves on genocide today...

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, together with Trump's proposal as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize, we have finally also known what the project with which he presents himself with peace is. At a dinner at the White House he spoke about the Palestinians, saying that in their future there is a safe, but only voluntary, transfer. Netanyahu then made it clear what this transfer is for, because "every Palestinian state would be a platform for Israel." Did anything come from the Arab countries? Nothing. In fact, these are plans, colleagues, that have no chance of being carried out. All American strategy, starting in 1990, that is, the first war in Iraq, has been the failure of attempts at regime change – any regime change – simply because not even great powers like the US, or regional powers like Israel, have enough forces and men to do so. It was not enough for 500,000 men in Iraq to organize a regime change, much less for Israel its soldiers, even if put with the American ones, against 80 million Shiites. As you can see, these plans are not realistic: It shouldn't be very difficult to find a way to question them.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, immediately after the ceasefire with Iran, China delivered to Iran itself a new supply of surface-to-air missiles, the famous SAMs, according to the Middle East Eye, news that has not been denied. Moreover, 90% of Iranian oil is destined for Beijing and is very important for the general prices of the world. All this to say that China is not the benign nation interested only in trade. We cannot deceive ourselves: China, like all great powers, is also interested in war. Moreover, there is no better economic protectionism than that of having a strong military apparatus. So, this is the real reason to reopen the dialogue with China. We need to understand what's going on in that country. We will not neglect human rights, which will remain our main parameter, but we must open a dialogue with this nation, China, which is also independent of the information of other nations and above all of the information on China that the United States proposes to us. Dialogue is somehow part of our strategic independence.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will speak in Italian. You will forgive me if I speak not of tariffs but of Gaza. These two events actually respond to the same idea of politics: Trump's replacement of the public interest with the private interest. We all know that in six days President Trump will be in Jerusalem on his first international visit. And Bibi Netanyahu, his government, thought of presenting him with a gift in that situation. We know from the plan that was approved yesterday that the government intends to invade Gaza to move Palestinians from their territory and then entrust their welfare only to private charities. This means one very important thing: It means the abolition of another page of our democracy, which has been made up of brokerage companies, of a policy of brokerage. Outside, therefore, will be the humanitarian organizations, those of the States, the UN itself in the end, but also ours. I look at this year that I've been here and I've noticed nothing but the inability to make a difference in Palestine. But don't worry: The ghosts of failure are always at our doorstep.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, while we are debating, rightly, our very important decision to prepare for the defence of Europe, Trump, Putin and Zelensky are, it seems to me, totally committed, and very active, to preparing the negotiating table. A table, from which I remember, we were expelled without even being warned, unless Minister Lubilius was. This is an incredible vulnus, it is the real point of these negotiations: Keep Europe out. So, I ask you: As we rightly prepare this defense plan, shouldn't we pose the problem and the priority of returning to that table? Minister, we are in danger today of making a great military speech but of keeping politics out, starting with the role of Parliament.

Mr President, Donald Trump presented himself as a pacifier and in a few weeks turned to be 'Mr Chaos'. But we Europeans should not be afraid of this. The truth is that the more that America withdraws into its nationalism, the more we can move into a space of influence greater than ever. In the Middle East, many influential countries are orphaned at the moment of any initiative: Lebanon, the Gulf countries, Syria, Israel itself – which is not the kingdom of Benjamin Netanyahu, it's a much more complex country. We have to work to revive this network of alliances. I hope that the High Representative Kaja Kallas will take this step and will work with this Parliament, as many of my colleagues who have spoken today before me in this room are asking, and as it's urgent to have an answer.

Mr President, in these very hours in Gaza, dozens of people are hanging between hope and despair, both Israeli and Palestinian. It is our duty for us – all of us, beyond the ideology – as MEPs and as human beings, to help this short truce to become a real peace. Allow me to appeal to our High Representative: Ms Kallas, Europe on the issue of the Middle East has been passionate but distant. Our effort to build peace has been almost non-existent. This is the time to make amends. Let's start with the humanitarian project, Ms Kallas, a project large, generous that will define your entire mandate. I believe that this Parliament has the intelligence, the passion and the means to help two populations to survive with the right effort.

Mr President, I'm just returning from the mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, so I think I can give, first, a little testimony. Some 3.4 million people went to vote on Sunday in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was a very competitive and very delicate vote for a country that is composed not of three peoples, but of three different ethnic ethnicities: the Serbs, the Croats and the Bosniaks. It was the Friday afternoon when all of a sudden we were hit by the news that there was a major flood that indeed had provoked 19 victims. It was around Mostar. For a moment, everybody freaked out – like we have to cancel the elections, with the rest of the election being valid. 48 hours later, happily the situation had been, in a way, brought under control. There were five municipalities that were postponed, but the situation was saved. It was saved also because – and we were happy to see it, and we were proud to see it – the European Parliament immediately activated the Copernicus Services and the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. You could see the EU rescue team in the country helping, with updated maps, with pumps, generators, excavators and more. It was frankly a good moment for Europe. We were proud to be there as Europe. It was a decisive wave not only for humanitarian things, but because I think it shows that, in a very delicate political moment, the EU could help; the EU was there, standing by Bosnia and Herzegovina. A few words about what we were doing there. We were there as part of the OSCE/ODIHR International Election Observation Mission, and the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament had given us the mandate to observe those local elections. As you may know or may not, normally the observer missions of this Parliament do not observe local elections. In this case, though, we went because the geography, the complex social geography, was important, but mainly it was a mission as a strong sign of the European commitment to this area, to Bosnia and Herzegovina. I just would like to remind you that, on 21 March, the European Council decided to green‑light the start of accession negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina once all the relevant state steps set out in the Commission recommendation of October 2022 are taken. So the flood drama decision helped! This was a good chain of events.

Madam President, Israel has the right to defend itself, of course. However, defence cannot become – as Netanyahu said a few days ago – a project 'to change the face of the Middle East'. And yet this project is well ahead. Under the Netanyahu leadership, Gaza has been destroyed. The vast expanse of land, the property has been requisitioned in the West Bank, Lebanon has been invaded. This is not a plan for peace. This is a plan for dominion. Netanyahu has no mandate for this. Yet Europe has been slow and indecisive on those issues. It is time to put underway a full European initiative for peace. My proposal is to create a dedicated project led by a very high-level envoy for peace in the Middle East, with the scope to call for an international conference as soon as possible.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I will not repeat the many complaints, I will not repeat the long list of horrors that we are all experiencing about Gaza, the Palestinians, 7 October and the entire Middle East. Unfortunately, indignation and denunciations do not make a peace process. I am a firm supporter of the fact that it is societies that get back together, it is societies that change and lead governments to make peace. In my opinion, Mr President, we have a double positive expression on this. In the Palestinian world, a very serious adherence to change has been set in motion, at least politically. In the change there is also a reform, which has been widely accepted, of the PLO and the PLO leaders. Equally great is the change in Israeli society. We continue to speak here of Israel, but there is not a single Israel: Israel is not just Netanyahu, and the families of the hostages, who with their resilience have galvanized a great movement against Netanyahu and are calling for elections, have demonstrated this very well. I believe that these are two new elements from which to start again to discuss.